Hi Ed: > Should it say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time > when it was disabled? Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful > to report disabled time likely to be the start time in many cases?) I think that for a disabled attempt the time when it was disabled should be reported. > Also, under succeeded, does it cover vacuous success?=20 I don't know about this. The callbacks are mimicking the classification of outcomes of evaluation attempts. Is the intention that success be a superset of vacuous success? Or is the intention that success be disjoint from vacuous success? Once we understand this, I think it will be clear how to adjust the text. Best regards, John H. > X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@verilog.org using -f > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 07:39:22 -0700 > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] FW: #805 > thread-index: AcZ7ThVqTw63yAmDQuWM3vGnujgnEQKYVmWQAPRdsJMAYggTEA== > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2006 14:39:23.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[55CD9220:01C68B09] > X-Virus-Status: Clean > Sender: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Manisha,=20 > =20 > the last statement in the document you sent says: > =20 > - cbAssertionSuccess, cbAssertionVacuousSuccess, > cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation and cbAssertionFailure: cb_time is the > time when the assertion succeeded or failed. > > =20 > > Should it say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time > when it was disabled? Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful > to report disabled time likely to be the start time in many cases?) > Also, under succeeded, does it cover vacuous success?=20 > > =20 > > Best regards, > > ed > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org] > On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:50 AM > To: sv-ac@verilog.org > Subject: [sv-ac] FW: #805 > =09 > =09 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kulshrestha, Manisha > Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 12:17 PM > To: 'sv-ac@eda.org' > Subject: #805 > =09 > =09 > Hi All, > =09 > I have incorporated most of the feedback in my updated proposal > (attached here). Please send your feedback. The original proposals are > still on mantis in case you want to compare. The main change in this > document is that disabled is not a success and thus very few changes are > needed in the LRM. > =09 > Thanks. > Manisha > =09 > 805: disable iff condition should produce vacuous match > Lisa: I agree with this too - failure counters do not > make > sense for coverage. > failure counters do not make sense for > coverage. > Joseph: yes > Doron: I think that disabled should not count as a > success=20 > in coverage. we need to change is the > report of the=20 > number of failures in coverage > Bassam: yes > Dmitry: I don't think the failure should be reported for > coverage at all. > Surrendra: yes > Ed: No success with disable to be reported. > Dmitry: I agree with the definition of the vacuous > success. > According to our discussion about the > property > coverage definition, there is no meaning > in disabled > coverage success, since it should not > count as a > coverage event at all.=20 > Therefore the suggestions concerning > Clause 17.13.3, page 288, > Clause 29.4.3, page 482, Clause 29.4.2, > page 481, > and Annex I are not relevant. > I agree with the proposal concerning > Clause 28.4.2. > Volkan: yes > =09 > =09 > =09 > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>FW: #805</TITLE> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Dus-ascii"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>Manisha, </FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>the last statement in the document you sent = > says:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging">— <SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: = > Courier">cbAssertionSuccess</SPAN>, <SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: = > Courier">cbAssertionVacuousSuccess,=20 > cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation and </SPAN><SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Courier">cbAssertionFailure: = > cb_time=20 > </SPAN>is the time when the assertion succeeded or failed.</P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"> </P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff = > size=3D4>Should it=20 > say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time when it was = > disabled?=20 > Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful to report disabled = > time=20 > likely to be the start time in many cases?) Also, under succeeded, does = > it cover=20 > vacuous success? </FONT></SPAN></P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff = > size=3D4>Best=20 > regards,</FONT></SPAN></P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>ed</FONT></SPAN></P></SPAN></DIV><BR> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 > style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = > solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> owner-sv-ac@verilog.org=20 > [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Kulshrestha,=20 > Manisha<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:50 AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20 > sv-ac@verilog.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [sv-ac] FW: = > #805<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> > <DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format --><BR><BR><BR> > <P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Kulshrestha,=20 > Manisha<BR>Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 12:17 PM<BR>To: = > 'sv-ac@eda.org'<BR>Subject:=20 > #805<BR><BR><BR>Hi All,<BR><BR>I have incorporated most of the = > feedback in my=20 > updated proposal (attached here). Please send your feedback. The = > original=20 > proposals are still on mantis in case you want to compare. The main = > change in=20 > this document is that disabled is not a success and thus very few = > changes are=20 > needed in the LRM.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR>Manisha<BR><BR>805: disable iff = > condition=20 > should produce vacuous match<BR>Lisa: =20 > I agree with this too - = > failure=20 > counters do not make<BR> =20 > =20 > sense for=20 > coverage.<BR> =20 > =20 > failure counters do not = > make sense=20 > for coverage.<BR>Joseph: =20 > yes<BR>Doron: I think = > that=20 > disabled should not count as a=20 > success <BR> =20 > =20 > in coverage. we need to = > change is=20 > the report of the <BR> =20 > =20 > number of failures in=20 > coverage<BR>Bassam: = > yes<BR>Dmitry:=20 > I don't think the failure = > should be=20 > reported for coverage at = > all.<BR>Surrendra: =20 > yes<BR>Ed: = > =20 > No success with disable to = > be=20 > reported.<BR>Dmitry: I = > agree with=20 > the definition of the vacuous=20 > success.<BR> =20 > =20 > According to our discussion = > about=20 > the property<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage definition, there = > is no=20 > meaning in disabled<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage success, since it = > should=20 > not count as a<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage event at=20 > all. <BR> =20 > =20 > Therefore the suggestions=20 > concerning<BR> =20 > =20 > Clause 17.13.3, page=20 > 288,<BR> =20 > =20 > Clause 29.4.3, page 482, = > Clause=20 > 29.4.2, page 481,<BR> =20 > =20 > and Annex I are not=20 > relevant.<BR> =20 > =20 > I agree with the proposal=20 > concerning Clause 28.4.2.<BR>Volkan:=20 > =20 > yes<BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7--Received on Fri Jun 16 05:56:31 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 16 2006 - 05:56:35 PDT